The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788















“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787















“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment: This Says it ALL

thefederalistpapers.org

Case closed Progs.

Wrong.

This fails as an appeal to authority fallacy.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine the meaning of the Constitution – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant lawful self-defense – having nothing to do with ‘preserving liberty,’ or ‘fighting tyranny,’ or preventing ‘government excess or overreach.’

Insurrectionist dogma is devoid of legal, Constitutional merit and soundly rejected by the Heller Court.

No, that's wrong. The Supreme Court was never given the power to interpret the Constitution, nor to change the meaning of what it says.

 

[toobfreak]

The entire country supports reasonable gun regulation.

BULLSHIT. And we already have reasonable and UNreasonable gun regulation! To the nines.

The founding fathers knew nothing about machine guns.

Ahha.

You clowns lost in November.

Famous last words.

 

[toobfreak]

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” Case closed Progs.

This isn't American anymore. This is the Communist Socialist Republic of The Democrap Party.

Anything you oppose is communism and socialism. Right wing fascists like you are attacking this country.

That's totally ass-backwards from the truth.

If the Bee weren't 180° ass-backwards from the facts and truth, he wouldn't be a good democrat.

A liar like you talks about the truth? The only thing that is ass backwards are your brains.

One can always tell when you hit a nerve of truth with you.

 

[badger2]

The Chinese invention of gunpowder evolved from resentment (Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China). There are still many fixated on this invention. Even John Wesley held prayer meetings in an abandoned gun factory.

 

[woodwork201]

scalia was a traitor that should be dug up and shit on,,

I wouldn't go that far but he was definitely a fraud. He was not the originalist that he pretended to be.

 

[Rigby5]

The entire country supports reasonable gun regulation. The founding fathers knew nothing about machine guns. If they had, they might have altered what they said.

You clowns lost in November.

Wrong!
It does not matter how many people are stupid enough to want gun control. Its still fundamentally illegal in a democratic republic.
If 99% wanted to enslave 1%, it would be illegal because a democratic republic is not majority rule, but the rule of law based on inherent individual rights.
And clearly gun control can only always ever result in anything but an authoritarian dictatorship, eventually.

And no, the founding fathers would be unchanged by modern weapons. A saber or blunderbuss is quite capable of the same multiple rate of death as a machine gun.

 

[woodwork201]

Total nonsense.
An insurrection does not have to counter tanks and planes.
Tanks and planes would never know where to blow up.
Insurrections are asymmetric warfare, where you hide and kill your enemies secretly, like when they sleep, eat, piss, etc.
No army has ever won against a determined insurgency.
Look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.

And it is also obviously a total lie to claim an insurgency, which obviously has to be the will of the people, could ever "run counter" to the fundamental tenets of American democracy.
The whole point of the Declaration of Independence is to justify insurrection by the will of the people.

I looked up the difference between insurrection and insurgency, expecting them to be the same thing. Then I found this definition that claims they're different:

As nouns the difference between insurgency and insurrection is that insurgency is rebellion; revolt; the state of being insurgent while insurrection is an organized opposition to an authority; a mutiny; a rebellion.​

So, in other words.. They're completely different: insurgency is rebellion while insurrection is... rebellion.

And a bunch of insurgents, insurrectionists, or just plain rebels, from the dark ages has now defeated both the Soviet Union and the United States..

 

[woodwork201]

I find that particularly disturbing, because clearly a popular armed insurrection most certainly is a LEFT WING absolute fact.
This country is based on armed insurrection that absolutely succeeded.
All countries used to be right wing monarchies, and they all went through left wing insurrections in order to lose their monarchies.
The fact you would then incorrectly associate armed insurrection with the RIGHT, is incredibly disturbing.
It really calls into question your whole understanding of history, government, and political theory.

Antifa, BLM, and the Marxist left are clearly the ones trying to overturn the United States.

 

[Rigby5]

A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR found a letter by Jefferson that he used to create a fake "Separation of Church and State" that was not found in the Constitution. Later on the Court found a "right to privacy" that was not found in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that you can take sentences attributed to Founding Fathers out of context all day long but all that counts is what was argued at the time and voted upon and ratified and placed in the Constitution.

Rights are not created by or contained in the Constitution.
That is because rights are infinite, so can never be enumerated.
The only thing the Constitution intended to do, was to list a few very specific restrictions on the federal government.
It avoided anything referring to states.
And yes there has always been a right to privacy, self determination of one's own body, etc., so there is a right of women to have abortions if they want.
And while there originally was no separation of church and state in states like Pennsylvania or Massachusetts originally, clearly that was a mistake and it is good it was rectified.

 

[Rigby5]

Antifa, BLM, and the Marxist left are clearly the ones trying to overturn the United States.

At some point, all decent people will and should support insurrection.
This country has a checkered history.
The Spanish American war was evil, WWI was evil, Prohibition was evil, the War on Drugs is evil, asset forfeiture is evil, the invasion of Iraq was evil, the war in Vietnam was evil, the invasion of Panama was evil, the invasion Grenada was evil, etc.
Is it already so bad it should be destroyed?
That depends on if you are one of the people this government illegally abused or not?

 

[woodwork201]

The case is not closed. The weapons they used were muskets. They knew nothing about weapons like bazookas and machine guns. The late Antonin Scalia pointed this out. You cannot say the founding fathers meant for people to own machine guns and other heavy weapons.

A Philly friend of Ben Franklin may have invented one of the first semi-automatic weapons

George Washington commissioned 100 of the Belton Flintlock muskets in 1777.

billypenn.com

Modern firearms were being developed during the time of the revolution. They knew there was, and would be, more than the musket. Even if they had considered only the musket, which they did not do, then the fact that the government got more advanced weapons would clearly have to be taken as proof for the need to protect more advanced weapons for the people.

Also, from the OP:

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

The Founders definitely intended that the people would own the same arms as the government. They clearly, from many of the quotes in the OP, meant for those weapons to be a defense, or even offense, against governmental overreach and tyranny. In fact, there's zero mention of sport or hunting and very little mention of personal or familial self-defense.

They knew about cannons and cannons and warships were owned by civilians.

 

[woodwork201]

Progs ALWAYS go to the illogical extreme. NOBODY is trying to make a case for that. You don't get my AR or my Mags.

So, after all your positioning, even posting all those quotes from the Founders, it turns out that you're actually a gun controller. You have much in common with busybee01 and David Chipman; you agree that the government can and should infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, you only disagree on which arms they should restrict us from owning. No wonder we're losing the fight.

The Founders absolutely DID intend for us to own machine guns, bazookas, and other terrible weapons of war. To quote Tench Coxe,

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

 

[woodwork201]

No, that's wrong. The Supreme Court was never given the power to interpret the Constitution, nor to change the meaning of what it says.

What Marbury gave the Court, or what the Court assumed in Marbury, is the authority of the Court to consider the Constitutionality of a law when considering a case based on a law. And we want them to do that; otherwise, when a law violates the Constitution, there would be no way to challenge it. There would be no way to challenge any gun ban.

The problem is, most courts and most justices, don't weigh a law against the Constitution. They have set themselves above the law and the Constitution. When a government act is absolutely, even admittedly, in violation of the Constitution and one who is supposed to be among the most conservative justices in history claims that it's unconstitutional but it's OK for now but just don't do it again, President Biden. Well, that proves that the Court, even the supposed, though proven otherwise, conservative justices appointed by Trump care nothing at all about the Constitution.

Trump did a lot of great things, but he really did suck at choosing/appointing people. He misunderstood because, in industry, you fire people who don't go along and pay those who do very well. It doesn't work that way in government so he didn't get the loyalty he was used to. He just had too much faith in humanity and was taken in by so many of his appointees and advisors... The man was great as was his love for the country. But his three Court appointees have been a huge disappointment.

 

[woodwork201]

Rights are not created by or contained in the Constitution.
That is because rights are infinite, so can never be enumerated.
The only thing the Constitution intended to do, was to list a few very specific restrictions on the federal government.
It avoided anything referring to states.
And yes there has always been a right to privacy, self determination of one's own body, etc., so there is a right of women to have abortions if they want.
And while there originally was no separation of church and state in states like Pennsylvania or Massachusetts originally, clearly that was a mistake and it is good it was rectified.

Do I have a right to shoot my guns? Even if you're in front of it? Do I have a right to swing my baseball bat? Even if you're in front of it? How the hell do you get that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy even if there's a child in front of it?

Her body, her choice, ended when she spread her legs.

 

[woodwork201]

BULLSHIT. And we already have reasonable and UNreasonable gun regulation! To the nines.


Ahha. View attachment 509176


Famous last words.

What are the reasonable gun restrictions? And what is the constitutional authority for them? If they have the authority to make "reasonable" restrictions then they have the power to make any restriction. All that's left is to debate what is "reasonable"

 

[Rigby5]

A Philly friend of Ben Franklin may have invented one of the first semi-automatic weapons

George Washington commissioned 100 of the Belton Flintlock muskets in 1777.

billypenn.com

Modern firearms were being developed during the time of the revolution. They knew there was, and would be, more than the musket. Even if they had considered only the musket, which they did not do, then the fact that the government got more advanced weapons would clearly have to be taken as proof for the need to protect more advanced weapons for the people.

Also, from the OP:

The Founders definitely intended that the people would own the same arms as the government. They clearly, from many of the quotes in the OP, meant for those weapons to be a defense, or even offense, against governmental overreach and tyranny. In fact, there's zero mention of sport or hunting and very little mention of personal or familial self-defense.

They knew about cannons and cannons and warships were owned by civilians.

I would even go further and say that the Founders did not the government to have professional men at arms at all, because would do whatever those who paid them, told them to do. I would say the Founders ONLY wanted citizen soldiers, from the general population, and had their own arms.

Who do you trust more with any arms, mercenaries working for money, or the actual citizens of the country?

 

[Rigby5]

Do I have a right to shoot my guns? Even if you're in front of it? Do I have a right to swing my baseball bat? Even if you're in front of it? How the hell do you get that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy even if there's a child in front of it?

Her body, her choice, ended when she spread her legs.

No, humans do not have a choice.
To be normal, most of them MUST have sex.
The fact that can and will result in pregnancy, is irrelevant.
Consciousness is what makes human special, and an unborn does not have that.
They don't care.
In fact they are incapable of thinking about anything at all.
So the woman is the only one who gets to say anything.
Everyone else should remain silent as to what she wants to do.

 

[Rigby5]

What are the reasonable gun restrictions? And what is the constitutional authority for them? If they have the authority to make "reasonable" restrictions then they have the power to make any restriction. All that's left is to debate what is "reasonable"

There may be some reasonable restrictions states and cities can make, but clearly the 2nd amendment was about banning any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms.

 

[justinacolmena]

‘Progressives’ also correctly understand the fact that nowhere in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment does the Constitution ‘authorize’ the overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people

Progressives forget that "the law" itself does not come about or exist by virtue of an overwhelming police force, as to put down a rebellion. Quite the contrary.

In particular a felony or "a capital or otherwise infamous crime" — under the U.S. Constitution —may only be tried by the indictment of a Grand Jury of randomly selected citizens.

It's part of the process, called the due process of law. An alleged offense can only be tried as a crime if it is the will of the people that it be tried as such.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong!
It does not matter how many people are stupid enough to want gun control. Its still fundamentally illegal in a democratic republic.
If 99% wanted to enslave 1%, it would be illegal because a democratic republic is not majority rule, but the rule of law based on inherent individual rights.
And clearly gun control can only always ever result in anything but an authoritarian dictatorship, eventually.

And no, the founding fathers would be unchanged by modern weapons. A saber or blunderbuss is quite capable of the same multiple rate of death as a machine gun.

in a democratic republic 99% could enslave 1%,, thats the democratic process,,

we are a constitutional republic and the constitution part is what stops the 99%

not sure why so many people get that wrong,,